Übergeek 바둑이: Blind obedience to an ideology of whatever sort is based on fear. As such a person does not believe the ideology I feel but is just looking for something to believe in and have some affirm that they are right. Yes, this has and always be a dangerous situation, as a idolised leader can always take advantage of such blindness. Or, those who say they represent an idol can use such fear to affirm their own or take advantage in many ways of blind believers.

As to blindness in western society... No. No longer possible. There are those who would like such blindness carried on, but as now there is no limiting in the western world of information it cannot happen. Yet as always the sand in the hand principle regarding the end of an era comes up. Panic... we are not believed anymore, we must make our idol more solid.. hence extremism. It's a sign of an ideology dying. Some deaths are quick, some take time.

I would say Frank Herbert does a good write on this in his character Duke Leto II. As such though reading the whole series of the Dune books gives more depth... long read though

Freedom.. sometimes it needs defending, but never at the price of demonisation of a group in opposition. We've fought wars in the past against such demonisation and for the right reason. It is never good, it leads to the ability to justify being monstrous and then the question arises... who is the demon? It is in that respect that the Qu'ran has articles of war and rules akin to the Geneva convention over the treatment of soldiers and civilians in time of war. Before this I guess the Arab states (like many an army of that time) took part in the usual atrocities following a victory or as part of that war. It is said by some these articles portray Islam as a war based religion. It is not, but at the time of formation of the Muslim faith, they faced destruction by their enemies, yet the prophet of their religion wanted to teach self discipline and even in war there can be respect.

AS to a line.. The Bible says everything is permissible, but not everything is beneficial. An example would be crossing the line as that in wars of the nature we face today leads to martyrs and the cycle of violence is justified. The war in Northern Ireland came to an end through talk, although most of those involved wanted an end to the violence, such was the mistrust that an outsider needed to mediate. Violence did not end the war, the desire for it's end by all those involved did, as then talks had substance.

This is what those who've never been in such a situation don't understand about wars on terror. The Northern Ireland situation went on for decades. An attack could happen at any time anywhere in the UK. Those fighting had no uniform, just their cause. Sometimes the British Army as such would take sides and supply info on an activist on the side of the IRA to loyalists rather than wait till the courts could be used. That just created more hate. Made things worse.

This is why in the UK we are sceptical of much of the Middle East business. That's why the new inquiry into the Iraq war has had much voicing done on it regarding transparency. The UK population will not accept a whitewash, we already know much from past inquiries. As such that is why millions marched in protest against the war. It didn't wash. We didn't believe our leaders and we didn't want our troops dying in vain for made up reasons. We understand that the government of the time did not want the USA to wage that war alone, yet maybe more effort on saying that the war was for the wrong reasons would have led to a more thought out approach to the situation as a whole.

The cold war taught much, that there is such as a war that you cannot win. Direct confrontation of extreme actions would lead to self destruction, nukes and biological weapons were just great ornaments for the boys as there was no way that they could be used. Even with a completely successful first strike the radiation would be blown in the wind, mutation and death would sweep the Northern hemisphere. Food would be poisoned from absorbed radio active elements. Our economies would collapse from the strain.

Is there a price that is too high to pay. Yes. When values of decency go out the window we've already lost.

(V): This is what those who've never been in such a situation don't understand about wars on terror. The Northern Ireland situation went on for decades. An attack could happen at any time anywhere in the UK. Those fighting had no uniform, just their cause.




I dont buy any analogy between the war on terror and the civil war in north ireland.....what because they had no uniforms, and were fighting for a cause???? There were actual people who could sit down to reach a civil agreement, but not on the war on terror.... who do we get to have this conversation with to end the war on terror peacefully???? I can agree that there needs to be other fronts besides just killing them and shutting down their camps. more pro active and peaceful ways, but its rubbish to say that armys have no purpose and can have substitutes in every instance.

Czuch: It was not a civil war. I don't know where you get that from, but that is not true. Mainland UK was just as likely to be bombed as NI was. If you look back in the history books you'll see an attempt was made to kill Maggie Thatcher through a bomb at a hotel. Car bombs going off, the only hope was that it was one of the main IRA groups that gave coded warnings, so the damage was only property. Assassinations of high ranking officials took place also. There was no line of battle, the UK and Ireland were the battlefield and anyone could be a casualty.

I'm not saying armies have no purpose, but using them for the wrong purpose serves no good.

(V): http://www.onwar.com/aced/data/india/ireland1968.htm

Czuch: And? I see the notes are truncated and leave out alot of history. That UK civilians were targeted does speak of terrorism does it not? Sudden bombs going off killing loads of people who really had no fight and were just as sick of the war.

Btw.. Not all IRA or Loyalist groups stopped fighting. Some extreme elements as in any side just can't stop hating.

(V): and.... you asked where I got the idea it was a civil war, and I showed you where, thats all

Czuch: Yeah well.. too many sides involved for a civil war. And as the British were involved the civil war idea goes out the window. In the early days of splitting Ireland I could agree, but it had just transformed into an ugly business. The British helping the Loyalists and Americans helping the IRA.

Strange days!!

(V): I think most civil wars have a lot of foreign involvement though. There are always going to be "outside forces" that have some interest in how a civil war turns out in the end. There was foreign involvement in the American Civil War, and it is still considered a civil war.

I suppose calling the British "foreign" in the Ireland issue is a bit of a stretch though.

rod03801: Thanks Rod, for the back up!

rod03801: Agreed, civil wars can have alot of foreign intervention. But through us British eyes it was a war of terrorist activities. There as I said, was no set line of battle, most of the targets were civilian in nature (at least re the IRA). No uniform was used by the Loyalists or the IRA.

It does not fit a civil war model.

And yes, the British did invade Ireland a few hundred years back. The creation of Northern Ireland was to create a home place for the protestants who emigrated to Ireland during the time when us British ruled and used Ireland as a crop land, as most natural born Irish people were catholic. Early in this century, Ireland (as in the main part) was returned to the Irish. It is a separate country. We need a passport to go there.

It is best to study the whole history of British involvement, then perhaps you'd understand where I'm coming from.